Whether it is a tenant with a preferential right to payment with a fixed date under the Commercial Lease Protection Act.

The location of business registration and lease contract is inconsistent with the real estate registration register, but the third party could fully recognize the lease, so the valid business registration is recognized and the lessee is entitled to preferential lease.

Article 3 of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, etc.

1. Of the dividend table prepared by the above court on March 10, 2006 with respect to the auction case of real estate rent of ○○ District Court 2004ta 4300, the amount of dividends of 35,000,000 won to the defendant Park ○○○ shall be reduced to 14,451,085 won, and the amount of dividends of 260,382,650 won to the defendant Republic of Korea shall be reduced to 256,597,725 won, respectively, and the amount of dividends of 30,00,000 won to the defendant Hwang○○○ shall be deleted, and it shall be corrected to distribute the amount of dividends of 24,33,840 won to the plaintiff Shin○○○○, and the amount of dividends of 30,000,000 won to the plaintiff Park○○○.

2. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims against the Defendant in the Republic of Korea and the Plaintiff’s claims against the Republic of Korea by Park Jong-○ are dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Of the dividend table prepared on March 10, 2006 by the above court, the amount of 35,00,000,000 won for Defendant Park ○○ shall be reduced to 14,451,085 won, and the amount of 260,382,650 won for Defendant Republic of Korea shall be reduced to 25,931,565 won, and the amount of 25,00,00,000 won for Plaintiff Shin○○ shall be reduced to 25,931,565 won, and it shall be corrected to distribute the amount of 25,00,000 won to Plaintiff Shin○○.

Of the dividend table prepared on March 10, 2006 by the above court, the amount of 30,000,000 won for Defendant Yellow ○○ shall be deleted, and the amount of 260,382,650 won for Defendant Republic of Korea shall be reduced to 246,234,664 won, and the amount of 260,382,650 won for Defendant Yellow ○○ shall be reduced to 246,234,664 won shall be corrected to distribute KRW 44,147,986 to Plaintiff Pak○○.

1.Recognition

A’s evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 5, A’s evidence of subparagraph 6-1 through 15, A’s evidence of subparagraph 7-1 through 9, A’s evidence of subparagraph 1, 2-2, A’s evidence of subparagraph 2, A’s or 3, 4, 5, A’s evidence of subparagraph 6-1, 2, A’s or 7-1 through 15, A’s evidence of subparagraph 8, A’s evidence of subparagraph 9-1, 2, Eul’s evidence of subparagraph 1, B(1), and 2 can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings.

A. On each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter referred to as the "site in this case"), only one building consisting of each real estate listed in the separate sheet 4 through 14 (hereinafter referred to as "the aggregate building in this case", and the real estate listed in the separate sheet 7, 14 among them is referred to as "the 1,2 divided stores" in the separate sheet 7, and the 1,2 divided stores in this case are installed on the 1st floor of the aggregate building in this case. The separate stores in this case are divided into four rooms, and each room is marked as "301, 302, 303, and 304."

B. On May 31, 199, the Plaintiff Park○-dong 1100-10-10 on October 29, 2002, which was part of the divided stores of this case 1002 No. 261.85 square meters, was leased for 24 months, and the above lease contract was renewed on the same terms and conditions on April 13, 2001. On October 29, 2002, the Plaintiff Park○-dong 1100-10 on the business site was registered as the business site, and the fixed date was renewed by the head of the competent tax office.

C. On January 18, 2002, the ○○○○, Kim○○, and Lee○○○○, established a collateral security on each real estate listed in the separate sheet to secure KRW 2,100,000,000, which was loaned by ○○○○ Co., Ltd. from ○○ Bank (a mutual stock company prior to the alteration), with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the amount of maximum debt was set up against ○○ Bank.

D. On January 8, 2004, the Plaintiff New ○○○ leased 304 square meters (304 square meters), a part of the divided stores of this case, from the head of the competent tax office, for 24 months. On February 9, 2004, the Plaintiff’s business registration was made on the location of 304 square meters of 00-10 ○○ building, Nam-gu, 1100-10 ○○ building, and obtained a fixed date from the head of the competent tax office on the lease agreement.

E. On May 10, 2004, Defendant Park Jong-○ leased 56.03 of the instant one’s neighborhood living facilities from Lee○○ on a deposit for 24 months at KRW 35,00,000, monthly rent for 700,000, and completed the registration of establishment of chonsegwon, which was 35,000,000 for the instant one’s neighborhood living facilities, on May 24, 2004 as ○ District Court’s receipt of 58287 for the instant one’s neighborhood living facilities.

F. On September 7, 2004, Defendant Republic of Korea issued a disposition of seizure on each real estate listed in the separate sheet in order to recover the delinquent national taxes of this ○○.

G. On January 24, 2005, the procedure for the auction of real estate was initiated with the District Court 2005 4300 on 205, and on March 10, 206, the amount of KRW 206,702,04, which is the amount to be distributed to the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 6, 47, 394, 203, 14, 14, 166, 14, 6666, 25, 306, 147, 297, 206, 147, 257, 360, 297, 1.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim

In addition to the delivery of a building under Article 3 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act, business registration, which provides as the requirements for opposing power, is prepared as a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of leasehold rights for the safety of transaction. Therefore, whether a business registration has the effect of public announcement of a lease shall be determined depending on whether it can be recognized that the lessee is registered as the person who has the domicile or residence in the lease building due to such business registration under the general social norms.

With respect to the instant case, although the instant neighborhood living facilities were indicated as the size of 310-10, 1101-8, 1102-5, 213, 301 reinforced concrete building 349,315 square meters on February 9, 2004, the Plaintiff New ○○○ is registered as the location of 1100-10, 304, 304, and its registration is inconsistent with the real estate registration register, as seen earlier, there is only the instant building on the instant site, and therefore, it appears that the general public can easily be seen that ○○○ Building referred to as the instant aggregate building, even if it appears to have been registered as the new 304 square meters on the ground that only the Plaintiff’s new 3rd-gu, Nam-gu, 2004, 1101-8, and 1102-5, 301 square meters on the date of the instant apartment building. Therefore, it can be seen that only the Plaintiff’s new 304, etc.

However, according to the above employment evidence and evidence Nos. 1 and 2 above, 66,160 won, which was distributed in the fourth order to the defendant Republic of Korea as the seizure authority, with respect to the divided stores of this case 1, is earlier than the day of January 25, 2004 and April 10, 2004, which is the day of establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the defendant Park Jong-○, the day of establishment of the right to lease on a deposit basis of the defendant Park Jong-○, and therefore, there is no reason for this part of the claim against the defendant Republic of Korea.

B. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim

(1) Claim against Defendant Yellow ○○

(A) Indication of claim: Defendant Yellow ○ is the most lessee.

(B) Judgment by service (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

(2) Claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

Article 3 (1) of the Commercial Building Lease Protection Act provides as the requirements for opposing power along with the delivery of a building, and the establishment of a public announcement method that enables a third party to clearly recognize the existence of leasehold rights for the safety of transaction. Thus, whether a business registration has the validity of a lease or not shall be determined based on whether a lessee can be recognized as a person who has an address or residence on the leased building due to such business registration under the general social norms. In case where a lessee has registered a business without indicating that a condominium building has been registered as a part of a site, the lessee cannot be recognized as having an address or domicile in a specific building or a residence on the aggregate building in light of the general social norms. Thus, the lessee cannot be deemed as having satisfied the valid announcement method of the lease on the leased building (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da15467, Jun. 14, 2002; 2004Da4284, Feb. 23, 1996).

On October 29, 2002, with respect to this case, the registration of the business on the location of ○○○○○○-dong 1100-10 on October 29, 2002 was made by the Plaintiff Park Jong-○, a third party cannot be identified by generally accepted social norms as having his domicile or residence in the instant two neighborhood living facilities. Thus, Plaintiff Park Jong-○ cannot be deemed as having a valid public announcement method of the lease on the instant two neighborhood living facilities. Accordingly, Plaintiff Park Jong-○ cannot be deemed as having a valid public announcement method of the lease on the instant two neighborhood living facilities. Accordingly, Plaintiff Park Jong-○’s claim against the Defendant against the Republic of Korea without any need to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim against the defendant Park Jong-○ by the plaintiff Shin-○ is justified and accepted. The claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is without merit. The plaintiff Park Jong-○'s claim against the defendant Park Jong-○ is justified, and the claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.